SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 17 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-11-2008, 12:54 PM   #321
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:56 AM
See, Indy, at least you stick to your guns. You don't want equal protection for a class of people, so you're willing to write them out of California's constitution. You're willing to alter a state's constitution to include prejudice and exclusion. Not everyone's willing to admit to that.
__________________

martha is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 01:13 PM   #322
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Just highlighting the important parts of your post for you.
Of coarse you left out the preceeding words

“more contemporary appreciation of..."

I.e, that is to say, read into the state constitution a meaning that heretofore had gone unnoticed by all previous state Supreme Courts and legislatures.

see also: legal sleight-of-hand, judicial activism, creating law rather than interpreting law, legislating from the bench and creating rights without all that rigamarole about amending the constitution.
__________________

INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 01:18 PM   #323
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 06:56 AM
INDY you seem to have a problem with the common law legal system.

Perhaps France would be better suited for you?
anitram is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 01:22 PM   #324
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
INDY you seem to have a problem with the common law legal system.

Perhaps France would be better suited for you?
Peut-être.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 01:23 PM   #325
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,724
Local Time: 06:56 AM
Indy...do you think that it is more important for the law to reflect the will of the people than it is for the law to be RIGHT?
namkcuR is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 01:28 PM   #326
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Of coarse you left out the preceeding words

creating rights without all that rigamarole about amending the constitution.
Of course, you left out the equal protection clause of all these constitutions. Or are you the one who gets to choose who that applies to?
martha is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 01:39 PM   #327
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
Indy...do you think that it is more important for the law to reflect the will of the people than it is for the law to be RIGHT?
Do you think it appropriate that RIGHT be decided by a margin of 4 unelected judges to 3 unelected judges?

Do you think it appropriate that RIGHT be debated by lawyers in a closed courtroom rather than amongst citizens and their elected legislators in a public forum.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 01:47 PM   #328
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
which is insulting both to the citizens of Californian and the victims of racial segregation in this country's history. Not to mention just plain wrong. In the California decision it was noted that the state's domestic-partnership law already gave gay couples "virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law." In other words, equal protection. That's your fallback position. Did blacks in Birmingham have anything approaching equal protection or equal rights under the law in 1963?
Gays have virtually all the legal rights of married couples in California. Why can't these gays just understand that when it comes to marriage, they are separate but equal?

Quote:
We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.
The crux of Brown v. Board of Education declared that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal, regardless of the actual conditions.
mobvok is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 01:54 PM   #329
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
In the California decision it was noted that the state's domestic-partnership law already gave gay couples "virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law." In other words, equal protection.
In what world does "virtually" mean equal?

It sounds like separate but not equal to me.
BVS is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 01:56 PM   #330
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Do you think it appropriate that RIGHT be decided by a margin of 4 unelected judges to 3 unelected judges?

Do you think it appropriate that RIGHT be debated by lawyers in a closed courtroom rather than amongst citizens and their elected legislators in a public forum.

I dunno. Ask the good folks of Topeka, Kansas. Their RIGHT to discriminate was eliminated by the activist Supreme Court. Ask the citizens of Montgomery, Alabama. Their RIGHT to ride in the front of the bus was eliminated by the Supreme Court.

Neither of these groups had any democratic say in their RIGHTS being terminated.
martha is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 01:58 PM   #331
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
See, Indy, at least you stick to your guns. You don't want equal protection for a class of people, so you're willing to write them out of California's constitution. You're willing to alter a state's constitution to include prejudice and exclusion. Not everyone's willing to admit to that.
Proposition 8
"only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Now, I sure the hell would love to see YOUR definition of marriage that shows no prejudice and excludes no one.

Go ahead miss "equality for all," and rewrite proposition 8 so that you could vote for it.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 01:59 PM   #332
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Do you think it appropriate that RIGHT be decided by a margin of 4 unelected judges to 3 unelected judges?

Do you think it appropriate that RIGHT be debated by lawyers in a closed courtroom rather than amongst citizens and their elected legislators in a public forum.
Bans on interracial marriage were not struck down by voters (or their elected officials).

Rather, it took the California Supreme Court to decide in Perez v. Sharp that blacks and whites had the right to marry.

Perhaps these blacks should have shut up and waited for the California legislature to get with the fucking program and repeal the statute? That is the logical conclusion of that position.
mobvok is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:09 PM   #333
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Proposition 8
"only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Now, I sure the hell would love to see YOUR definition of marriage that shows no prejudice and excludes no one.

Go ahead miss "equality for all," and rewrite proposition 8 so that you could vote for it.
Two consenting adults... not that tough.
BVS is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:10 PM   #334
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Proposition 8
"only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Now, I sure the hell would love to see YOUR definition of marriage that shows no prejudice and excludes no one.

Go ahead miss "equality for all," and rewrite proposition 8 so that you could vote for it.
I'm not voting for Proposition 8, so why would I reword it? I think this
Quote:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;
says it all.

You're the one, mr. exclusion, who is willing to deny rights based on sexual orientation, not me.

I was going to edit, but BVS said it for me.
martha is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:11 PM   #335
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
Perhaps these blacks should have shut up and waited for the California legislature to get with the fucking program and repeal the statute? That is the logical conclusion of that position.
It's true. Whites "just weren't ready."
martha is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:15 PM   #336
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Two consenting adults... not that tough.
I think he's going for the old polygamy argument, though.

The key assumption is that being gay affects your ability to love another person- you're unstable/unable to fully commit to another person. Or being polygamous, you're unstable/unable to fully commit to all your partners.

I think the gay argument is self-evidently unjustified. I am not sure about the second one, though. And polygamy has historically treated women very, very poorly.
mobvok is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:18 PM   #337
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:56 AM
Well I've already made the point of why polygamy doesn't work in this scenario but if he really wants to play dumb and go down that path I'll explain it again...
BVS is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:25 PM   #338
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:56 AM
[QUOTE=BonoVoxSupastar;5528116 I'll explain it again...[/QUOTE]

You may have to. It's all the anti-gay marriage people seem to have.

That and the children.
martha is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 02:31 PM   #339
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
I'm not voting for Proposition 8, so why would I reword it?
Quote:
martha
You're willing to alter a state's constitution to include prejudice and exclusion. Not everyone's willing to admit to that.
Well certainly not you. Unless, of course, martha's definition has no definition.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-11-2008, 03:05 PM   #340
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Well certainly not you. Unless, of course, martha's definition has no definition.
I really don't know what this means.


My state's constitution has an equal protection clause. That's what caused the Supreme Court to overturn the ban on same sex marriage. People who support the ban need to amend the state constitution to do so. That's what Proposition 8 is, an amendment to the state constitution. It writes an exclusion limiting marriage into the constitution; it attempts to eliminate a group's constitutional right to equal protection based on sexual orientation.

So. That's why I don't support it. I don't support limiting access to rights based on sexual orientation.
__________________

martha is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×